AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. M.F. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA for the State respondents.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The Petitioner applied for the post of an Orderly Peon pursuant to the advertisement published vide No. Meg/Soil-14/126 (Pt.V/,
dated 9th January, 2015. The Petitioner after having passed out successfully the written examination and personal interview was
appointed to the post of Orderly peon by the State Respondents vide Office Order No. O.O.No.255 dated 15th October, 2015 in
the Scale of pay of Rs.6500-160-7620-EB-210-9510-290-12700/-p.m. plus other allowance as admissible under the rules.
Since the day when she joined the duty, the Respondent No.2 assigned the non-official work like washing of utensils, moping the
floor, sometimes to iron the cloths, etc. The Petitioner was doing the work assigned to her at the residence of the Respondent No.2
except Sunday; however she realized that the work assigned to her was not the work of an Orderly peon. The Petitioner being young
and unmarried woman was forced to work in the residence of Respondent No. 2 as a maid servant. Thereafter, the Respondent No.
2 started pressurizing her to stay in his residence at night despite the fact that the house of the petitioner was not far from the quarter
of the Respondent No. 2.
It may be submitted that the petitioner at the very outset refused to stay in his residence at night which had offended the Respondent
No. 2, consequent thereof, the Petitioner was prevented from entering the residence of the Respondent No. 2 since the Petitioner
refused to stay in his residence at night. The Petitioner having no other option approached the office of the Superintendent and
highlighted her plight, resulting the Respondent No. 2 become more aggressive towards the Petitioner and as a punitive measure
withheld the salary of the Petitioner by issuing an official communication to the senior treasury Officer vide letter No. Meg/soil-
29/1446/2701 dated 27th July 2016 on the pretext that the Petitioner did not perform her duty for the last six/ seven months while the
Petitioner was continuously performing the duty assigned to her by the Respondent No. 2 except the Petitioner did not agree what the
Respondent was insisting her to stay in his residence at night.
The harassment to the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 2 did not stop but he went one step further in transferring the Petitioner to
the office of the Respondent No. 3 at Byrnihat despite the fact that the post held by the Petitioner is not transferrable as apparent
from the Advertisement dated 08-01-2015, the entire action of the Respondent No. 2 in transferring the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary
and discriminatory in as much as it was issued with a mala-fide intention to harass the Petitioner so that she would succumb to the
pressure of the Respondent No. 2 in accepting his proposal as offered by him with ill motive.
The Representation dated 10/11/2016 filed by the Writ Petitioner was not attended and disposed of by the Respondent No.1 as
such the Petitioner having no option joined her duty to the Office of the Joint Director of Soil and Water Conservation, the
Respondent No. 3. However, the impugned Order of transfer was passed by the Respondent No. 2 with a mala-fide intention to
harass the Petitioner despite the fact the post which is held by the Petitioner is not transferrable, hence no reason whatsoever has
been assigned in the impugned order of transfer for passing such transfer order.
The impugned Order of transfer No. 284 dated 8-11-2016 passed by the Respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside and quashed by
this Hon''ble Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the fundamental and legal right of the
Petitioner has been infringed because of passing of the impugned order of transfer which is mala-fide and punitive in nature. Further,
the impugned order of transfer is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Both the learned counsels for the parties submit that the respondent has already revoked the transfer order of the petitioner, so the matter has
already become infructuous in that regard.
The petitioner filed an affidavit to bring the subsequent development along-with the documents on record for the disposal of the instant writ
petition. In Para 4 of the said affidavit, it is clearly mentioned that the grievances of the petitioner has already been addressed by the respondent.
So, the matter has become infructuous.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 14 of 2017 is hereby
dropped and stands disposed of on being infructuous.
No order as to costs.